- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
A judge ordered Planned Parenthood to hand records of transgender care over to Andrew Bailey.
A St. Louis judge has ruled that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is entitled to Planned Parenthood’s transgender care records, ordering the nonprofit to turn over some of its most sensitive files to the man who has built his unelected political career on restricting health care access for trans people.
In his Thursday decision, Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer wrote that Bailey can collect documents under Missouri’s consumer protection statute that aren’t protected under federal mandate, namely the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA.
“It is clear from the statute that the Defendant has the broad investigative powers when the consumer is in possible need of protection and there is no dispute in this matter,” wrote Stelzer. “Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to some of the requested documents within his [Civil Investigative Demand].”
Bailey, who last year attempted to implement a ban on gender-affirming care for people of all ages, was quick to celebrate the decision, calling it a “big day” for the state.
Why should it matter if the parents give consent if the minor cant consent? A parents could consent to their child getting a face tattoo, but it doesnt mean a kid can consent to that.
I don’t understand your question. Children can’t consent, so when they would need to consent to something, their guardians are asked to consent for them. That’s how e.g. all medical surgeries are performed on children.
So then what if the child wants a face tattoo, should the parent be able to consent for them?
What do you mean, “should”?
Legal guardians do handle consent for their wards, which is why circumcisions are legal - there’s no meaningful legal distinction here between a face tattoo and a circumcision.
That’s how things are. If you’re asking me how things ought to be, that’s an absurd question to ask someone on the internet.
Of course there is a legal distinction and practical difference between a face tatoo and circumcision, that is just silly. So you are perfectly fine with a minor permanently changing themselves just as long as their parents dont disagree?
Why do you care /what does it matter what I’m perfectly fine with? I’ve been describing the way the country’s legal system works to you. I’m not a lawmaker, I can’t change any of these rules.
No, that is not how the legal system works…
I care because children dont have the ability to consent, and if they are being abused then they have the right to be protected.
In your mind, how does our legal system handle children’s consent issues if not the legal guardians, then? How do you think it works when a child wants to go on a field trip in school, for example? How is consent determined?
The parent can consent to things that dont directly harm kids. The part in question is what direct harm is, and you guys seem to think permanent changes of their biology (if that is the right word) is not direct harm and that is where the disagreement is.
Shit, I thought you were just asking questions. You had a point this whole fuckin time? What a cowardly way to make it!
Oh yeah, the internet is all about bravery…